Do we accept 'end products'/modules in META-SHARE?

Oct 11, 2012 at 13:22

Hello,

Do we accept end products in META-SHARE?

Concrete example 1: apertium translation system between Norwegian bokmål and nynorsk. This is open-source, hence re-usable, and I think it could be described with metadata in META-SHARE. Agree?

Concrete example 2: modules that are not stand-alone end-user products, but rather modules that only will work if you provide an application into which they may be plugged. For instance a module that may be integrated under the "search" field on the Internet or intranet. The integration must be done by developers, i.e. the module will not work without such integration into a larger system.

 

Tags:

Discussion 9 answers

  • avatar
    Answer by cspurk on Oct 11, 2012 at 13:35

    Hello Gunn,

    the simple answer to your question is “yes”. That’s what the tool/service resource type is for.

    For example, JTok is usually used as a library (by developers) and it has a META-SHARE entry. It can also be used stand-alone. There are many similar examples in the META-SHARE Network.

    Regards,

    Christian

  • avatar
    Answer by Gunn Lyse (META-NORD, University of Bergen) on Oct 12, 2012 at 19:23

    Good, thank you.

    I clicked on the tool/service resource link, but could not find a way to filter the tools/services according to whether they are for-free or for-a-fee. (This should be easy to find info about, did I overlook something?) Therefore, let me ask: I would like to make sure that we are also interested in recording tools/services that are available for-a-fee?

    Do we require that they must have a potential for reusability? (I would assume so?)

  • avatar
    Answer by cspurk on Oct 15, 2012 at 08:48

    Hello Gunn,

    there is currently no way for reliably distinguishing for-free and for-a-fee LRs as the metadata schema is rather vague in this respect. The best I can recommend is to filter by the different free and open source licenses (BSD, CC-…, LGPL, etc.) to get an overview of free resources.

    As I’m more or less just a technical person wrt. META-SHARE, it would probably be better if someone else could answer your non-technical questions.

    Regards,

    Christian

  • avatar
    Answer by Gunn Lyse (META-NORD, University of Bergen) on Oct 15, 2012 at 09:36

    Hi,

    yes, I would really appreaciate a clear answer regarding my nont-technical question:

    I would like to make sure that we are also interested in recording (in META-SHARE) tools/services that are available for-a-fee?

    Do we require that they must have a potential for reusability? (I would assume so?)

    Gunn

  • avatar
    Answer by pennyl67 on Oct 15, 2012 at 10:56

    Hi Gunn!

    As Christian has already answered you, the for-free vs. for-a-fee resources (not just tools/services) can now be found indirectly through the semantics of licences; note also that regarding the META-SHARE licences, this is clearly indicated on the title of the licence. The metadata element "Fee" which could be used for distinguishing these two values is a non-searchable element.

    So, thanks for the comment; we will take it into account for the next versions.

     

    And yes, META-SHARE is interested in recording resources that are available for-a-fee; ELRA-distributed resources are such a good example.

    Cheers,

    Penny

     

  • avatar
    Answer by prodromos on Oct 16, 2012 at 07:56

    Dear Gunn,

     

    Following Penny's and Cristian's comments, I would also like to confirm that the type of the licence explicates whether the LR is licensed uwith a fee or for free. 

     

    What METASHARE is interested in is that an LR is provided with an as standard licence as possible allowing reuse of the material and this is what the specific licence choice actually serves.

  • avatar
    Answer by prodromos on Oct 16, 2012 at 07:56

    Dear Gunn,

     

    Following Penny's and Cristian's comments, I would also like to confirm that the type of the licence explicates whether the LR is licensed uwith a fee or for free. 

     

    What METASHARE is interested in is that an LR is provided with an as standard licence as possible allowing reuse of the material and this is what the specific licence choice actually serves.

  • avatar
    Answer by prodromos on Oct 16, 2012 at 07:58

    Dear Gunn,

    Following Penny's and Cristian's comments, I would also like to confirm that the type of the licence explicates whether the LR is licensed uwith a fee or for free. 

    What METASHARE is interested in is that an LR is provided with an as standard licence as possible allowing reuse of the material and this is what the specific licence choice actually serves.

     

     

    I hope this is answer covers your question.

     

    All the best,

    pRo  

  • avatar
    Answer by prodromos on Oct 16, 2012 at 07:59

    Dear Gunn,

    Following Penny's and Cristian's comments, I would also like to confirm that the type of the licence explicates whether the LR is licensed uwith a fee or for free. 

    What METASHARE is interested in is that an LR is provided with an as standard licence as possible allowing reuse of the material and this is what the specific licence choice actually serves.

     

     

    I hope this is answer covers your question.

     

    All the best,

    pRo  

  • This question is closed and can't have new answers